*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice<\/em> (Volume 12 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL \u2013 AUSTRALIA \u2013 General Editor: Professor Michael Legg<\/em><\/p>\n EDITORIAL \u2013 NEW ZEALAND<\/a> \u2013 General Editor: Roderick Joyce QSO KC <\/em><\/p>\n Evaluation of Pre-action Protocol Implementation in South Australian Civil Cases, 2018\u20132023<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>\u2013 Lyle J Palmer and Margaret Castles<\/p>\n New Uniform Civil Rules (UCRs) implementing pre-action processes (PAPs) were introduced in South Australian (SA) civil jurisdictions in 2020. The UCRs include various initiatives: uniform terminology across jurisdictions, electronic document management, overarching obligations, and, unique to South Australia, comprehensive PAP requirements The new UCRs aimed to encourage clear articulation of matters at issue between parties, promote early negotiation, and support early resolution of disputes. These changes were designed to result in a more efficient and cost-effective flow of civil proceedings. A study of the impact of the new UCR investigated summary data relating to the impact of PAP in civil proceedings (n = 14,474) commenced in SA civil jurisdictions over a six-year period before and after the introduction of the new UCRs in order to evaluate outcomes associated with the new UCRs. This article reviews the implications of the data review and suggests further avenues of investigation to better understand the impact of and attitudes to PAP.<\/p>\n Corporations Legislation Class Actions, Group Costs Orders and the Transfer of Proceedings \u2013 Bogan v Estate of Smedley (Deceased)<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u2013 Michael Legg and Sophie Sievert-Kloster<\/p>\n The availability of financing is a key prerequisite for an Australian class action to be viable and permit claimants to pursue legal action. To that end, the State of Victoria enacted an amendment to its class action regime that permits group costs orders or GCOs \u2013 legal fees calculated as a court-determined percentage of the amount of any award or settlement. Victoria is the only Australian jurisdiction that permits GCOs. In Bogan v Estate of Smedley (Deceased) <\/em>the High Court of Australia held that a GCO made in a class action commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria could not operate in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and that, consequently, the class action could not be transferred. This has important ramifications for the choice of forum for class actions in Australia.<\/p>\n COURT WATCH \u2013 Editor: Dr Bernard Cairns<\/em><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – JCivLP Vol 12 No 1 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n